FACES AND PLACES: 1984: the beautiful and the bad (12/30/84)

FACES AND PLACES

by Myron B. Kuropas

1984: the beautiful and the bad

Every year leaves its mark upon the Ukrainian American community, but 1984 was truly special.

Like every year, 1984 was filled with events and developments which had a profound impact upon our present and future as a community. But it was also a year during which the opposing philosophies of pluralism and centralism which dominate strategy development within our ranks demonstrated as never before, what each could generate in terms of final product.

Some events were "beautiful." They made a positive contribution to the promotion of our common interests and elevated us above our own particular, narrowly defined, and often petty self-interests.

Other developments were "bad." They contributed nothing to the common good. They brought out our worst instincts and reinforced our own peculiar biases.

The best example of what was beautiful about 1984 was the victory achieved by Ihor Olshaniwsky (unquestionably our community's "Ukrainian of the Year") and Americans for Human Rights in Ukraine (AHRU) in having Congress pass legislation establishing a U.S. commission to study the Soviet-orchestrated 1932-33 famine in Ukraine. In addition to its obvious benefit to Ukrainians everywhere, the AHRU accomplishment demonstrated the following.

Ukrainians who had a worthy goal and were willing to pursue it with fervor, diligence and dedication could still achieve it outside of Ukrainian American "establishment" channels. Mr. Olshaniwsky did not wait for the recognized Ukrainian American leadership to help him fulfill his mission. He created his own network of ardent supporters who like him, were willing to sacrifice their time, effort and money to promote their cause. The last time anything similar happened was when Stephen Chemych initiated the Ukrainian Studies Chair Fund in the late 1950s and shepherded it to a successful conclusion some years later. Ukrainian American youths who complain that the "establishment" is stifling their initiative should look to Messrs. Chemych and Olshaniwsky for their example.
Unity of effort is still possible when the goal is realistic, the strategy is well planned and the leadership is willing to reach out to all segments of the community. Mr. Olshaniwsky and AHRU were pluralists who successfully enlisted individuals from every religious and political segment of our community. They rejected no one. If there was opposition, it came not from organizations but from individuals too infatuated with their own exaggerated statuses in Washington to allow others to tread on their "turf."
We have influential friends outside of our community who are willing to help us attain goals of mutual benefit. During the hearings on the House side, eloquent testimony was presented by David Roth of the American Jewish Committee, and Dr. John Kromkowski, a Pole and the president of the National Center for Urban/Ethnic Affairs. As pluralists, Mr. Olshaniwsky and the AHRU were willing to reach out to ethnic leaders some Ukrainian Americans normally ignore.

The best example of what was "bad" in 1984 were the shenanigans initiated by certain centralist leaders within the UCCA during the Russification protest in Washington last fall. The centralists attempted to dominate all aspects of what was to have been a joint endeavor both at the Shevchenko monument and at the White House meeting with President Ronald Reagan. Their behavior was an embarrassment and one more example of how misguided their leadership has become.

In 1985, our community can become more pluralist in its approach or more centralist.

If we follow the pluralist philosophy, the major thrust of community life will be on broadening our base to include as many Ukrainians as possible, expanding our leadership cadres to ensure a variety of perspectives, healing our wounds and establishing significant liaisons with other ethnic communities.

If we follow the centralist philosophy, the emphasis will be on excluding Ukrainians with ideas unacceptable to certain self-annointed party elitists, limiting our leadership cadres to those trusted few who follow the party line at all costs, pouring salt on our wounds with provocative, insulting and demeaning tirades in the press and at various Ukrainian conclaves, and fiercely rejecting non-Ukrainian influences because they "undermine" the Ukrainian identity.

The choice in 1985 will again between the beautiful and the bad.